| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Totally not bleeding tears of envy at how awesome your games sound.
You are not the only one, my friend.
Which reminds me. Ashiel, I have seen some people ask if they can join some of your games as spectators, to see how it all plays out in reality. Did anything work out of that? If it did, is it possible to do that again?
That's basically how Aratrok ended up joining my games. He shot me a PM asking for advice for his GM because he wanted to run an undead PC and the GM was nervous about it (but I had said I GMed for undead PCs semi-frequently). Later Aratrok participated in one or two OpenRPG games, and invited me to a MapTools game, and the rest is history.
I worry that I wouldn't live up to the hype though. I'm just one person. Aratrok and Raital could summarize my GMing / provide some insight. I'm sure they've got some beef with it somewhere.
As to sitting in on sessions or even taking part in them, that's actually really easy. I do my GMing on MapTools these days. The hard part is actually finding time to run a campaign (hopefully I can finish a short mini-adventure I was doing for my friends' persistent world, Wyrmspire and then have no outstanding obligations for GMing).
I don't know how entertaining the game would be without playing it it though. Though we do often use voice-chat over Discord and such, when I'm using a medium like MapTools, pretty much all the dialog and roleplaying is through text (we banter about stuff OOC though) because I feel like the player's own mind's eye is better for filling in the blanks for voices and scenes better, and it gives a sort of interactive storybook vibe that I think is pretty cool. I see it as a certain strength of the medium that traditional tabletop gaming lacks (it can be a little more immersive). I still love tabletop though for different reasons.
Y'know if you ended posting up when one of those games is going you'll probably get like 10 spectators at this point and counting. Including myself.
As for the hype, eh, I'd be just as happy to see how it plays out myself and maybe learn some new tricks hah. I prefer text myself cus it let's me order my thoughts a bit better. If I sound disorganized when I write, imagine how I talk. :p
Wyrmspire definitely looks neat though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>Totally not bleeding tears of envy at how awesome your games sound.
You are not the only one, my friend.
Which reminds me. Ashiel, I have seen some people ask if they can join some of your games as spectators, to see how it all plays out in reality. Did anything work out of that? If it did, is it possible to do that again?
That's basically how Aratrok ended up joining my games. He shot me a PM asking for advice for his GM because he wanted to run an undead PC and the GM was nervous about it (but I had said I GMed for undead PCs semi-frequently). Later Aratrok participated in one or two OpenRPG games, and invited me to a MapTools game, and the rest is history.
I worry that I wouldn't live up to the hype though. I'm just one person. Aratrok and Raital could summarize my GMing / provide some insight. I'm sure they've got some beef with it somewhere.
As to sitting in on sessions or even taking part in them, that's actually really easy. I do my GMing on MapTools these days. The hard part is actually finding time to run a campaign (hopefully I can finish a short mini-adventure I was doing for my friends' persistent world, Wyrmspire and then have no outstanding obligations for GMing).
I don't know how entertaining the game would be without playing it it though. Though we do often use voice-chat over Discord and such, when I'm using a medium like MapTools, pretty much all the dialog and roleplaying is through text (we banter about stuff OOC though) because I feel like the player's own mind's eye is better for filling in the blanks for voices and scenes better, and it gives a sort of interactive storybook vibe that I think is pretty cool. I see it as a certain strength of the medium that traditional tabletop gaming lacks (it can be a little more immersive). I still love tabletop though for different reasons.
>I worry that I wouldn't live up to the hype though.
I doubt that would be a problem for me, personally. When I find that I am being hyped, I usually adjust my expectations "downwards" by about twice as much as I was hyped "upwards". When done properly, it means that I am only ever pleasantly surprised(or not surprised at all) by how the things turned up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, ever think of fixing things such as adding more varied strategy, i.e. making it so choosing how to attack or what to attack with requires more thought than simply comparing dpr?
Or maybe making things a choice between harder to hit vs harder to hurt, in regards to armor and other protections?
Those sorts of things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, ever think of fixing things such as adding more varied strategy, i.e. making it so choosing how to attack or what to attack with requires more thought than simply comparing dpr?
Or maybe making things a choice between harder to hit vs harder to hurt, in regards to armor and other protections?
Those sorts of things?
Core Pathfinder already has all that built-in. Want harder to hit? Get AC. Or Blur. Or Mirror Image. Or Invisibility. Want harder to hurt? Get DR. Or Regeneration. Or Fast Healing.
As for strategy, it isn't about the system.
Strategy is about using all the game pieces you have availible to you. It is about seeing how those pieces fit together. It is about confusing your enemy without being confused yourself. It is about achieving victory before you even come to the battlefield. It is about a million things that all interract with one another, change over time and with your actions and how you can use those things to achieve your goals. Strategy is The Art Of War.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
Notice how DPR or anything that actually relates to the qualities of your army/weapon is pretty much the last thing on the list.
Now, deeper systems generally allow for more strategy, while shallower ones allow for less, so only thing you can really do is ask "Is Pathfinder sufficiently deep in regards to weapons?", and I think the answer is "Holy crap yes".
Pathfinder has 3 kinds of dealable damage. It has weapons with Reach, it has weapons that only work up close, weapons that only work at range, weapons that work somewhere in between. It has weapons that don't deal any damage, and instead disable/inhibit the enemy. It has weapons that allow for interraction with other weapons. Heck, there are subsystems that allow you to design your own weapons.
And all that is availible at lv1, without even going into magical stuff. What additional depth is required here? If you want to see an example of how this depth can be utilised, see this post. Or perhaps this thread, though it is less about combat directly and more about strategic system mastery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Core Pathfinder already has all that built-in. Want harder to hit? Get AC. Or Blur. Or Mirror Image. Or Invisibility. Want harder to hurt? Get DR. Or Regeneration. Or Fast Healing."
Incorrect. None of those prevent the others.
There is nothing about getting higher AC that makes you more fragile, nor is there anything about increased toughness that makes you easier to hit.
"As for strategy, it isn't about the system."
It is partly about system. I probably should have said Axi of strategy, paths of strategic options.
For example, in a 2d fighting game where there is no environment, environment can't play a part in strategy, thus the entire swath of strategic options related to using the environment don't exist in such a game.
Design of the system/game can therefore shape the field of possible strategic options.
What you described as options for ac vs toughness were limited in availability purely by the limit of funds available to a character. What I meant by ading strategy was to force a chosen balance between two aspects, to make it inherent that gaining a lot of one precludes having a lot of the other regardless of available resources.
For example, making armor have weight that negatively impacts ac but reduces damage. Such a rule set would mean that at any level with any resources, a character must still sacrifice the ability to avoid hits in order to gain ability to withstand them.
The point behind forcing this choice is to make it so players can't just focus on one number to vastly improve. You can't just say "get the highest ac armor" because that isn't absolutely the only or best way to minimize damage taken in an enounter.
Likewise with attacking, currently maximizing dpr is the single best way to be offensive, because there is no other aspect to defeating an opponent other than to drop them to zero hp as fast as possible.
There is no room for the struggle between light fast fighter and heavy power fighter, as those only exist when you have no option to be both. If having resources allows to be both, then there is no interest in that struggle as the primary goal will be to rise above needing to choose, which then invalidates the struggle itself as strategy, as it results in a "one true way"-ism the way of both. Preventing both while making them approximately equal forces strategy to be about which side you can best handle to achieve victory, it allows endless opportunities for difficulty in choosing which to go with, because gaining one advantage grants another disadvantage.
Aka, Is there ever a reason in d20 to turn down higher ac? Not really. You might choose something else to get first, but always with the realization that you'll come back and get higher ac when you've gained the required resources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>There is no room for the struggle between light fast fighter and heavy power fighter, as those only exist when you have no option to be both.
Armors have maximum dexterity bonuses which prevent you from choosing both. Perhaps more importantly, improving either cost a lot, which prevents you from maximising both.
--
>You can't just say "get the highest ac armor" because that isn't absolutely the only or best way to minimize damage taken in an enounter.
AC is a terrible way to minimise damage taken in an encounter, so I am not sure I see your point.
--
>Aka, Is there ever a reason in d20 to turn down higher ac? Not really.
Uh, yes really. Any money you spend on AC is money you aren't spending elsewhere, and there is always a place to spend your money. As a Wizard(or any other primary mage) AC is probably close to last thing you would want to spend your limited resources on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Klara's correct on pretty much all of these points, as best as I can tell. The whole of d20 is a matter of weighing your resources. This is actually where I usually end up differing in opinion with a lot of forum-goers on subjects like offense vs defense (as I'm far more prone to emphasis defense over offense and just fight wisely and leverage class features and such).
If you want to have a good defense, you cannot just go for one defense. In regular d20, you have several common defenses.
1. Armor class (and its sub-groups: touch and flat-footed, and your choice in armors often do create some variance between these three).
2. Saving throws (because armor class won't help you against much beyond basic attacks).
3. Resistances (because things like fire resistance are important to mitigating large amounts of energy damage, or avoiding being melted by things like acid flasks).
4. Damage Reduction (essentially energy resistance for basic attacks, falling damage, and any non-magical physical damage).
5. Immunities (like being immune to poison, or negative levels).
Throughout most of your career in d20, there is an opportunity cost associated with everything that you do. Increasing things tends to get exponentially more expensive (a +1 armor is +1,000 gp, but a +2 armor is +4,000 gp, etc; a fire resistance 10 is 3,000 gp, but fire resistance 20 is 21,000 gp). These opportunity costs compete with each other and also with your offensive options (if you've got 2,000 gp lying around, do you upgrade your weapon to a +1 weapon, or upgrade your armor and your shield?).
Got an arguement that isn't based on how much money one has?
Cause honestly, money is a really weak control and as I said before, when volume of resource is the only barrier to have a cake and eating it too, then it diminishes the choice between having a cake or eating one, the barrier to victory becomes a matter of how many resources one has, thus improvement is all about increasing resources instead of improving your ability to utilize a particular scope of strategic options. One who has the resources to improve both will thus always be far superior to one who can only improve one thing.
Try this, in each case you will gain levels quickly and easily.
Situation A,
You can gain 20 levels in a primary class but only 5 levels in other classes. Thus picking one class precludes major advancement in other classes.
Situation B,
You can gain 20 levels in each class.
In situation A, class choice is immensely important because making that choice permanently precludes other choices. Class choice in situation B is far less important because you will eventually collect them all.
Which one will encourage developing a focus on a particular strategy? Situation A of course, because situation B will inevitably allow all strategic options thus making any strategic choice temporary at best.
Talking about wizards steps outside the parameters of the example. The goal of the wizard is to not fight at all, but rather to stay out of the fight and let others do the fighting (though supporting those who fight so the fight doesn't come to the wizard is a good idea). Since the example given is about fighting, then a character that doesn't fight is outside the example.
If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick? What critetia are in the choice? What can the pick do that the sword can't that might make the pick more suitable in some situations but worse in others?
If you can't think of anything for character who will use that weapon primarily (instead of say spells or relying on precision bonuses), then what is the point of the pick?
Normally, one who wields weapons wants the best weapon they can get and there is only one metric thst makes a weapon the best, dpr. Imagine though if there were two equally important stats of the weapon.
Ninja'd but really, my point stands. Limiting by resources just makes it a race to gain everything, rather than focusing on one thing over another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, ever think of fixing things such as adding more varied strategy, i.e. making it so choosing how to attack or what to attack with requires more thought than simply comparing dpr?
Pathfinder already has a ton of this, even for mundanes to an extent (particularly in regards to combat maneuvers, nets, reach weapons, alchemical items, etc), and tons for spellcasters (there are many magical attacks that don't care about dpr in the least). All of it is likewise highly situational (against a foe that isn't immune, a life-drinker is one of the best weapons you can use, mostly because of the penalties it inflicts).
But I imagine the answer is yes. I showed some early previews of some rogue talents that can be used to tweak their cunning strikes, allowing them to trade damage for extra abilities. Some of those things include making their foes bleed, and they had an option that let them ignore things like concealment vs bleeding foes.
Or maybe making things a choice between harder to hit vs harder to hurt, in regards to armor and other protections?
Those sorts of things?
Both are forms of damage mitigation, but it typically becomes less tactical if one precludes the other, because the types of foes you frequently face in an adventure are many and varied, but armor is not something you can casually switch between in combat like weapons, which means you're likely going to end up forced into whatever the middle ground between damage absorption and avoidance to stand a chance at surviving (since being all but immune to a goblin's bow isn't going to help you when the ogre pounds you for three times your DR and hits every time because your avoidance-% is balls).
Likewise, armor as DR mechanics have traditionally failed in d20. I reference things like the Armor as DR in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, and armor as DR in the star wars d20 games. In D20, it has generally been shown that AC > DR unless the DR is so extreme as to be nigh immune to incoming hits without it, which is never the case because it tends to make combat really boring when you've got twelve dudes fighting and they can't damage each other despite hitting with every attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Klara's correct on pretty much all of these points, as best as I can tell. The whole of d20 is a matter of weighing your resources. This is actually where I usually end up differing in opinion with a lot of forum-goers on subjects like offense vs defense (as I'm far more prone to emphasis defense over offense and just fight wisely and leverage class features and such).
If you want to have a good defense, you cannot just go for one defense. In regular d20, you have several common defenses.
1. Armor class (and its sub-groups: touch and flat-footed, and your choice in armors often do create some variance between these three).
2. Saving throws (because armor class won't help you against much beyond basic attacks).
3. Resistances (because things like fire resistance are important to mitigating large amounts of energy damage, or avoiding being melted by things like acid flasks).
4. Damage Reduction (essentially energy resistance for basic attacks, falling damage, and any non-magical physical damage).
5. Immunities (like being immune to poison, or negative levels).
Throughout most of your career in d20, there is an opportunity cost associated with everything that you do. Increasing things tends to get exponentially more expensive (a +1 armor is +1,000 gp, but a +2 armor is +4,000 gp, etc; a fire resistance 10 is 3,000 gp, but fire resistance 20 is 21,000 gp). These opportunity costs compete with each other and also with your offensive options (if you've got 2,000 gp lying around, do you upgrade your weapon to a +1 weapon, or upgrade your armor and your shield?).
>In regular d20, you have several common defenses.
I would also add miss chance to the list, since Concealment is pretty common.
>a fire resistance 10 is 3,000 gp, but fire resistance 20 is 21,000 gp
Isn't it 12 and 28 respectively, as per the ring of energy resistance?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got an arguement that isn't based on how much money one has?
Well, as I noted, AC, Touch-AC, and flat-footed AC do this to some extent already. Generally having a higher flat-footed AC does in fact preclude having a higher touch AC, and vise-versa.
Talking about wizards steps outside the parameters of the example. The goal of the wizard is to not fight at all, but rather to stay out of the fight and let others do the fighting (though supporting those who fight so the fight doesn't come to the wizard is a good idea). Since the example given is about fighting, then a character that doesn't fight is outside the example.
All characters fight.
If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick? What critetia are in the choice? What can the pick do that the sword can't that might make the pick more suitable in some situations but worse in others?
Because you like swords.
Normally, one who wields weapons wants the best weapon they can get and there is only one metric thst makes a weapon the best, dpr. Imagine though if there were two equally important stats of the weapon.
Not to be rude but I've never met anyone who understands D&D combat very well to prioritize DPR as the best feature of a weapon. In fact, many of the strongest weapons available to mundane characters are rather lacking on the DPR side (most reach weapons) or may not even deal damage at all (like nets), and may be favored due to versatility (such as dual-type weapons), or because of special features or abilities that they have (such as a shuriken's being counted as ammunition despite being throwing weapons).
Generally speaking, the base DPR of a weapon is largely irrelevant to the effectiveness of the weapon overall. Crit-% could have a case made for it but most weapons have roughly the same DPR breakdown when it comes to crit-% across the 19-20 vs x3 or the 18-20 vs x4 (though I tend to favor more frequent over bigger).
It's pretty rare that I choose a particular weapon because of 'damage'. For example, I frequently choose to wield one-handed weapons as my go-to (even for two-handed characters) because of their versatility. I can use a shield if needed, two-hand them for bonus damage if I need to punch through DR or punish low-AC with power attack, and they can be used in a grapple (which a greatsword cannot).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Klara's correct on pretty much all of these points, as best as I can tell. The whole of d20 is a matter of weighing your resources. This is actually where I usually end up differing in opinion with a lot of forum-goers on subjects like offense vs defense (as I'm far more prone to emphasis defense over offense and just fight wisely and leverage class features and such).
If you want to have a good defense, you cannot just go for one defense. In regular d20, you have several common defenses.
1. Armor class (and its sub-groups: touch and flat-footed, and your choice in armors often do create some variance between these three).
2. Saving throws (because armor class won't help you against much beyond basic attacks).
3. Resistances (because things like fire resistance are important to mitigating large amounts of energy damage, or avoiding being melted by things like acid flasks).
4. Damage Reduction (essentially energy resistance for basic attacks, falling damage, and any non-magical physical damage).
5. Immunities (like being immune to poison, or negative levels).
Throughout most of your career in d20, there is an opportunity cost associated with everything that you do. Increasing things tends to get exponentially more expensive (a +1 armor is +1,000 gp, but a +2 armor is +4,000 gp, etc; a fire resistance 10 is 3,000 gp, but fire resistance 20 is 21,000 gp). These opportunity costs compete with each other and also with your offensive options (if you've got 2,000 gp lying around, do you upgrade your weapon to a +1 weapon, or upgrade your armor and your shield?).
>In regular d20, you have several common defenses.
I would also add miss chance to the list, since Concealment is pretty common.
>a fire resistance 10 is 3,000 gp, but fire resistance 20 is 21,000 gp
Isn't it 12 and 28 respectively, as per the ring of energy resistance?
Yes, but the energy resistance items are in error. They're priced as if resist energy was a 2nd level spell with a minimum CL of 3rd. However, resist energy is a 1st level spell with a minimum CL of 1st from the Ranger's spell list. According to the rules for magic item creation, you use the lowest level versions available when determining their value (which is the ranger's), and so the energy resistances are an oversight.
Similar to how ogres aren't proficient with greatclubs and thus the ogre creature entry is an oversight (the ogre isn't taking the appropriate -4 nonproficient penalty).
"Likewise, armor as DR mechanics have traditionally failed in d20."
It fails because there is only one path to defeat, depleting hp. (barring a couple save or dies, which I don't like) Thus armor as dr does nothing but control speed of that depletion (and is skewwed based on your lvl compared to what is hitting you).
An alternative is a fort save and injury track. Higher damage makes it more likely to cause an injury, but weapons a;so have penetration making caused injuries more severe. Weapons that are better at damage are also worse at penetration. A pick is great against armor because if you manage to cause an injury it is likely to be significant, while a sword is more likely to cause an injury it will be far more minor. Of course, against unarmored rabble, a sword is nicer as it has good chance of causing injury and without armor protection, that injury is likely to be lethal. A pick against tjat rabble is suddenly less optimum because while any injury is certainly lethal, it will still be difficult to achieve that injury to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth noting that due to the 50% markup rule, even using the correct multipliers, getting resist 10 vs Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, and Sonic would cost +22,500 gp on armor (or 21,000 gp for its own slot, or 15,000 gp at the cost of 5 slots).
"According to the rules for magic item creation, you use the lowest level versions available when determining their value"
If I recall that is only for spells not on the basic cleric/druid/wizard list trinity. Unless pf changed that, in which it is a case of them ,making a major pricing change without changing all items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got an arguement that isn't based on how much money one has?
Cause honestly, money is a really weak control and as I said before, when volume of resource is the only barrier to have a cake and eating it too, then it diminishes the choice between having a cake or eating one, the barrier to victory becomes a matter of how many resources one has, thus improvement is all about increasing resources instead of improving your ability to utilize a particular scope of strategic options. One who has the resources to improve both will thus always be far superior to one who can only improve one thing.
Try this, in each case you will gain levels quickly and easily.
Situation A,
You can gain 20 levels in a primary class but only 5 levels in other classes. Thus picking one class precludes major advancement in other classes.Situation B,
You can gain 20 levels in each class.In situation A, class choice is immensely important because making that choice permanently precludes other choices. Class choice in situation B is far less important because you will eventually collect them all.
Which one will encourage developing a focus on a particular strategy? Situation A of course, because situation B will inevitably allow all strategic options thus making any strategic choice temporary at best.
Talking about wizards steps outside the parameters of the example. The goal of the wizard is to not fight at all, but rather to stay out of the fight and let others do the fighting (though supporting those who fight so the fight doesn't come to the wizard is a good idea). Since the example given is about fighting, then a character that doesn't fight is outside the example.
If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick? What critetia are in the choice? What can the pick do that the sword can't that might make the pick more suitable in some situations but worse in others?
If you can't think of anything for character who will use that weapon primarily (instead of say spells or relying on precision...
>when volume of resource is the only barrier to have a cake and eating it too, ... the barrier to victory becomes a matter of how many resources one has
First of all, not true. In d20 enemy usually has less resources than you. However, how you utilise those resources is still important. I am fairly certain you made a false dichotomy there at some point.
Secondly, that is how it is supposed to be. You can be the best darn tactician that the world has ever seen and lead a dedicated force of 10 allies who you have fought along with for decades to the point where you don't need to talk to to know what the other is thinking, but if your enemy is Sarah Kerrigan who can just throw one hundred million hydralisks at your face as if it's nothing, you will lose.
--
>situation B will inevitably allow all strategic options thus making any strategic choice temporary at best.
All strategic choices are temporary at best. Sun Tzu said “Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing.”
--
>The goal of the wizard is to not fight at all
Uh...what?
>If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick?
Pick is better for CDG.
>Normally, one who wields weapons wants the best weapon they can get and there is only one metric thst makes a weapon the best, dpr.
No? I'd actually argue that it is the least important metric, because damage dice granted by the weapon becomes irrelevant at high levels, while various abilities, like Reach, stay relevant forever. And I don't know about you, but my characters usually carry several different weapons that are useful in different circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Likewise, armor as DR mechanics have traditionally failed in d20."
It fails because there is only one path to defeat, depleting hp. (barring a couple save or dies, which I don't like) Thus armor as dr does nothing but control speed of that depletion (and is skewwed based on your lvl compared to what is hitting you).
There are many paths to defeat.
1. HP depletion.
2. Ability score damage / drain.
3. Immobilization.
4. Energy drain.
It just happens that the basic function of all armor is to mitigate incoming physical damage (they can be made to help guard vs other things but at the end of the day, armor is about making you harder to hurt). In systems that try to make it easier to hit you for wearing armor, either the DR has to be so high as to compensate for it (which it never is, because having it so high creates a situation where most attacks just do nothing), or it creates a situation where armor doesn't matter much because everyone uses armor-ignoring/mitigating weapons and strikes them repeatedly (thus dealing more damage than if they were constantly whiffing attacks).
I think trying to over complicate it is bad for the game and bad for introducing the game to new people. Even experienced gamers aren't likely to be able to look at things like the Armor as DR rules in Unearthed Arcana and instantly recognize them for the ass that they are.
And, again, since armor cannot be tactically switched in combat but weapons can easily, you end up in a situation where you are forced to wear whatever gives the middle ground so you can be somewhat protected vs damage AND penetration, because going for one or the other means you just get easily dismantled by the enemy changing their weapon while you're stuck in your armor.
An alternative is a fort save and injury track. Higher damage makes it more likely to cause an injury, but weapons a;so have penetration making caused injuries more severe. Weapons that are better at damage are also worse at penetration. A pick is great against armor because if you manage to cause an injury it is likely to be significant, while a sword is more likely to cause an injury it will be far more minor. Of course, against unarmored rabble, a sword is nicer as it has good chance of causing injury and without armor protection, that injury is likely to be lethal. A pick against tjat rabble is suddenly less optimum because while any injury is certainly lethal, it will still be difficult to achieve that injury to begin with.
An alternative that will never happen, because it overcomplicates something that should be able to be resolved in 1 success test (hit roll) and 1 results test (damage roll). Having a series of injury tracks, checks to resist injuries, and lots of different weapons that are more or less effective at penetrating armor and/or causing injuries is a lot more complication for - quite honestly - little appreciable gain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sarah Kerrigan who can just throw one hundred million hydralisks at your face as if it's nothing, you will lose.
Kerrigan for waifu. (^//^)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"According to the rules for magic item creation, you use the lowest level versions available when determining their value"
If I recall that is only for spells not on the basic cleric/druid/wizard list trinity. Unless pf changed that, in which it is a case of them ,making a major pricing change without changing all items.
That's specific to the pricing of scrolls.
Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. An item is only worth two times what the caster of the lowest possible level can make it for.
...
The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it.
The lowest possible is the Ranger, at CL 1, Spell level 1.
Paladins are also the reason we have lesser restoration potions for 50 gp.
"Sarah Kerrigan who can just throw one hundred million hydralisks at your face as if it's nothing, you will lose."
That is a serious expenditure of resources. Give me equal resources and my 10 soldiers will handle the hydralisks, at least good enough for actual strategy to be important. Of course, with that much resources, my 10 soldiers can hire, train, and outfit an army capable of handling the zerg even more easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, in d20 legends we have basic attacks and heroic strikes. Heroic strikes are kind of like vital strikes from Pathfinder, in that you multiply your damage dice as part of one attack.
Basic attacks apply +static damage on each hit, and deliver their payload individually for each attack. So these are ideal for characters who wish to punch out lots of attacks with static damage modifiers (like enhancement bonuses, ability bonuses, etc).
Heroic strikes are a single attack but you multiply your bonus damage dice (which includes bonus damage from a high BAB, as well as features such as flaming or a rogue's cunning strike). These tend to deal less damage than if you hit with an equivalent amount of basic attacks, but it delivers its damage in one payload, making static modifiers less impactful and punching through damage reduction more readily.
Generally speaking, characters that favor weapons that are cheap, disposable, or don't reload very frequently, will tend to prefer heroic strikes. A pirate that carries twelve mundane pistols on his vest and has no time, money, or inclination to have them all made into +X weapons can just draw a pistol and blow somebody's head off with a big burst attack, and if they shoot a werewolf, well the damage will be reduced but the majority will go through.
Meanwhile, characters focusing on more attacks (like dual wielding, or archers) will tend to prefer basic attacks in most cases and will usually only heroic strike when the other options aren't very good.
"Having a series of injury tracks, checks to resist injuries, and lots of different weapons that are more or less effective at penetrating armor and/or causing injuries is a lot more complication for - quite honestly - little appreciable gain."
What series of injury tracks? what resist injury checks?
It really isn't complicated. The additional strategy is emergent, much like a glider gun in the game of life is emergent from very simple rules about whether a cell is alive or dead.
Besides, you could just even out damage across the board or make dr scale with the damage in some way (such as reducing all damage dice by one step, works on all scales)
What do you think of the Blue Rose and later True 20 damage systems?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Sarah Kerrigan who can just throw one hundred million hydralisks at your face as if it's nothing, you will lose."
That is a serious expenditure of resources. Give me equal resources and my 10 soldiers will handle the hydralisks, at least good enough for actual strategy to be important. Of course, with that much resources, my 10 soldiers can hire, train, and outfit an army capable of handling the zerg even more easily.
I think you missed the point. The point is that the resources between PCs and NPCs is not equal, in the PC's favor. The latter can still be dangerous however because they can frequently outnumber you and leverage what resources they do have in their favor.
For example, an encounter of 5 orcs and a filler (say a 100 XP gearless adept) is CR 3. The orcs, individually, are weaker than a party member of equal or greater level (they are 1st level warriors). However, with their NPC gear, they may have things like longspears and potions of enlarge person. Their adept can cast bless on them. They outnumber the 4-person party, and can tag-team individual members to maximize their threat in the shortest time. They could cause some harm to an APL 3 party.
If you're going into an encounter that's higher than your tier, you're likely to be even more outnumbered, or dealing with beefier creatures, but those individual creatures are more limited in personal resources, meaning they have to make sacrifices for certain things (such as offense vs defense) according to their role.
However, PCs are supposed to be far more stacked in terms of gear and preparedness than most people, because you're dealing with an average of 4 dudes who are supposed to be able to at least attempt to deal with everything that they will come across (in the same adventure, they may encounter orcs, mages, shadows, mummies, oozes, elementals, and ankhegs, all of which vary wildly in both their resistances and their ways of hurting you, and being prepared for only one or two means that you will die later and the game is over).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
>If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick?
In relation to this. One person gets Greater Grapple, grapples and ties up the foe as a full-round action. Another Coup de Graces him with a Scythe. Even if the Coup de Gracer is a lv 1 fighter(you can hire them as a hireling), they still deal 2d4(average 5)+3(power attack)+3(strength)+1(weapon focus)+1(sharpened with a whetstone) damage(average 13, minimum 10), which gives a DC 50 minimum save to not immediately die(average DC 62). Seems like a pretty functional build to me-at level 7, two rounds at worst to kill any target not immune to Coup de Grace.
EDIT:whoops, was wrong on my numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Sarah Kerrigan who can just throw one hundred million hydralisks at your face as if it's nothing, you will lose."
That is a serious expenditure of resources. Give me equal resources and my 10 soldiers will handle the hydralisks, at least good enough for actual strategy to be important. Of course, with that much resources, my 10 soldiers can hire, train, and outfit an army capable of handling the zerg even more easily.
Did...did you just prove your own point wrong?
>If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick?
In relation to this. One person gets Greater Grapple, grapples and ties up the foe as a full-round action. Another Coup de Graces him with a Scythe. Even if the Coup de Gracer is a lv 1 fighter(you can hire them as a hireling), they still deal 2d4(average 5)+3(power attack)+3(strength)+1(weapon focus)+1(sharpened with a whetstone) damage(average 13, minimum 10), which gives a DC 50 minimum save to not immediately die(average DC 62). Seems like a pretty functional build to me-at level 7, two rounds at worst to kill any target not immune to Coup de Grace.
EDIT:whoops, was wrong on my numbers.
So what? How does that refute my point? It is still a situation favoring maximizing damage and nothing else about the attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Having a series of injury tracks, checks to resist injuries, and lots of different weapons that are more or less effective at penetrating armor and/or causing injuries is a lot more complication for - quite honestly - little appreciable gain."
What series of injury tracks? what resist injury checks?
You said:
An alternative is a fort save and injury track.
Which isn't practical.
It really isn't complicated. The additional strategy is emergent, much like a glider gun in the game of life is emergent from very simple rules about whether a cell is alive or dead.
Besides, you could just even out damage across the board or make dr scale with the damage in some way (such as reducing all damage dice by one step, works on all scales)
Reducing damage dice by one step isn't going to solve that that issue unless it has other damage mitigating factors that are more complex.
So if naked = best evade-%
Light = worse evade-%, damage step -1
Medium = even worse evade-%, damage step -2
Heavy = worst evade-%, damage step -3
That means a longsword would deal 1d8 vs naked, 1d6 vs light, 1d4 vs medium, and 1d3 vs heavy. Of course, I'd much rather be able to hit the guy with heavy armor every round for 1d3+4 damage than I would every three rounds for 1d8+4. So now we need some way to mitigate bonus damage.
And then if we have weapons that pierce the damage mitigation, then we just switch to one of those and wreck anyone wearing heavy armor because their evade-% is ass. Meanwhile, the difference we deal to the naked but high evade-% guy is more or less negligible but we end up dealing less damage to them overall because we hit far less frequently.
So if now to push this into a great sense of balance, we opt to try to make some sort of damage or condition track, every attack now needs to test to see if "bad thing" happened to the guy getting whacked, in addition to testing to hit and rolling damage. One way that this could be done would be to make it so that multiple weak hits have less chance of triggering the "bad thing" (D20 Modern did this with their Massive Damage Threshold which was equal to your Con score, and bad things happened if you took that much damage from a single blow), but then we just hit naked people with our biggest weapons whenever possible and tear armored guys apart because they can't dodge (which isn't very realistic either), and it doesn't matter to anyone except the guys wearing armor because we can just change what weapon we're using while they can't stop in the middle of the fight to change clothes.
Did...did you just prove your own point wrong?"Sarah Kerrigan who can just throw one hundred million hydralisks at your face as if it's nothing, you will lose."
That is a serious expenditure of resources. Give me equal resources and my 10 soldiers will handle the hydralisks, at least good enough for actual strategy to be important. Of course, with that much resources, my 10 soldiers can hire, train, and outfit an army capable of handling the zerg even more easily.
No. I said it was about resources. You said it wasn't. You tried to use zerg to prove resources didn't matter. I said those zerg are an investment of resources, therefore your example of overwhelming zerg is exactly the same as overwhelming resources. Which proves my point.
Monsters may not have all their resources in equipment, but even an extra orc is a cost in extra resources. That orc had to be fed and trained, had to grow.
So what? How does that refute my point? It is still a situation favoring maximizing damage and nothing else about the attack.>If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick?
In relation to this. One person gets Greater Grapple, grapples and ties up the foe as a full-round action. Another Coup de Graces him with a Scythe. Even if the Coup de Gracer is a lv 1 fighter(you can hire them as a hireling), they still deal 2d4(average 5)+3(power attack)+3(strength)+1(weapon focus)+1(sharpened with a whetstone) damage(average 13, minimum 10), which gives a DC 50 minimum save to not immediately die(average DC 62). Seems like a pretty functional build to me-at level 7, two rounds at worst to kill any target not immune to Coup de Grace.
EDIT:whoops, was wrong on my numbers.
Because the damage in question only occurs in a specific situation, so it's more akin to a special ability of the weapon in this case. You're keeping the pick around for using it to perform a coup de grace for a massive damage spike, which is less about the damage and more about forcing a hopeless save vs dead.
Most of this will be irrelevant to d20 legends however, because damage differences between weapons will be minimal (hammer, sword, axe, pick, they all deal the same damage assuming same size or tech level), so you'll generally pick weapons based on preference or damage types. Weapon variety will tend to come in the form of abilities you can put on your weapons (sundering allows you to ignore an amount of hardness/DR, deadly increases your damage significantly on critical hits, powerful increases your base damage, etc).
So if you were making a woodsman's axe, you might make a small, medium, or large axe that has the sundering property. Not super excellent at damage but it's good at chopping up trees or hacking into the hide of a werewolf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters may not have all their resources in equipment, but even an extra orc is a cost in extra resources. That orc had to be fed and trained, had to grow.
Not in a way that's relevant to game mechanics, however. Which I think is clear the very clear point here.
"TheAlicornSage wrote:
An alternative is a fort save and injury track.
Which isn't practical."
Huh, not sure how "track" got in there. The track thing though seems quite practical to me. Wasn't what I intended but it does work, savage worlds for example.
"TheAlicornSage wrote:
An alternative is a fort save and injury track.
Which isn't practical."
Huh, not sure how "track" got in there. The track thing though seems quite practical to me. Wasn't what I intended but it does work, savage worlds for example.
Not for a D&D-based d20. At least, it's far outside the game I want to play, and thus far outside the game I want to produce.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters may not have all their resources in equipment, but even an extra orc is a cost in extra resources. That orc had to be fed and trained, had to grow.Not in a way that's relevant to game mechanics, however. Which I think is clear the very clear point here.
Oh but it is relevent. Mechanics don't give two dust bunnies about the fluff. +2 is a +2 regardless of whether it comes from innate strength or a magical enchantment. Therefore, mechanically speaking, a monster with similar stats to a pc costs similar resources, even though the monster doesn't have equipment. It's all the same to the mechanics.
The balance between hard to hit vs hard to hurt is not dependent on resources spent, but rather system design. A system may have poor balance built into it making one side far superior to the other or even making it all the same thing. But a system can also balance the two to make it a meaningful choice with a chance a success either way. It depends on design.
Now for d20, you'd clearly need to make a lot of changes, but that doesn't make the point invalid, just impractical (and only if you are trying to maintain some semblance of d20).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The balance between hard to hit vs hard to hurt is not dependent on resources spent, but rather system design.
This shows up frequently in monsters already. For humanoid enemies it's primarily about resource choices. With monsters, it's primarily about design goals.
As to some sort of innate opposition between evade-% and damage resistance, I don't really see the need. Neither implies or precludes the other and I'm not sure that it should.
Oh but it is relevent. Mechanics don't give two dust bunnies about the fluff. +2 is a +2 regardless of whether it comes from innate strength or a magical enchantment. Therefore, mechanically speaking, a monster with similar stats to a pc costs similar resources, even though the monster doesn't have equipment. It's all the same to the mechanics.
But you argued that an orc had to be grown, and fed, and that's a "resource". In terms of mechanics, not it isn't. The only relevant resources are the orc's XP value in building the encounter and the resources the orc has to fill out its equipment and role, which are typically less than the expected resources of PCs after 1st level, and the priorities that are reflected in the choices of how those resources are spent.
What do you think of the Blue Rose and later True 20 damage systems?
Anyone? Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel?
*cuts to exciting debate with TAS; cuts back*
Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel?
"The only relevant resources are the orc's XP value in building the encounter and the resources the orc has to fill out its equipment and role,"
The orc is more than just equipment and xp. It has attacks, actions, bonuses, etc. Each of those are equivalent to resources. When a monster has +7 to atk that is identical to a pc having +7 to attack. The pc noticeably spends resources because the players are making that choice, but the monster's +7 has an equivalent value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think of the Blue Rose and later True 20 damage systems?Anyone? Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel?
*cuts to exciting debate with TAS; cuts back*
Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel?
Haven't seen/tried 'em, so I can't honestly say. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The only relevant resources are the orc's XP value in building the encounter and the resources the orc has to fill out its equipment and role,"
The orc is more than just equipment and xp. It has attacks, actions, bonuses, etc. Each of those are equivalent to resources. When a monster has +7 to atk that is identical to a pc having +7 to attack. The pc noticeably spends resources because the players are making that choice, but the monster's +7 has an equivalent value.
Those are the net result of resources. The orc is still limited by resources. Especially since we were talking about equipment.
Also, I'd like to try to keep the context on these things on track. There's little point in talking about the design goals of weapons and armor and then jumping to orcs eating food as if it was somehow relevant to the topic at hand.
What do you think of the Blue Rose and later True 20 damage systems?Anyone? Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel?
*cuts to exciting debate with TAS; cuts back*
Anyone? Ashiel? Ashiel? Ashiel?
What are those? This is the first time I hear about them. Maybe you can give a short description?
Also, you know, I just noticed that you didn't favourite TheAliconSage's posts in this discussion. Quite passive agressive of you)
So what? How does that refute my point? It is still a situation favoring maximizing damage and nothing else about the attack.>If you are a fighter, why choose a longsword over a pick?
In relation to this. One person gets Greater Grapple, grapples and ties up the foe as a full-round action. Another Coup de Graces him with a Scythe. Even if the Coup de Gracer is a lv 1 fighter(you can hire them as a hireling), they still deal 2d4(average 5)+3(power attack)+3(strength)+1(weapon focus)+1(sharpened with a whetstone) damage(average 13, minimum 10), which gives a DC 50 minimum save to not immediately die(average DC 62). Seems like a pretty functional build to me-at level 7, two rounds at worst to kill any target not immune to Coup de Grace.
EDIT:whoops, was wrong on my numbers.
Because the damage in question only occurs in a specific situation, so it's more akin to a special ability of the weapon in this case. You're keeping the pick around for using it to perform a coup de grace for a massive damage spike, which is less about the damage and more about forcing a hopeless save vs dead.
*Voice of an annoyed specialist*
It's a scythe, not a pick, alright? Pick would have had one less average damage! That's 4 less DC! There is a lot of difference!
>Reducing damage dice by one step isn't going to solve that that issue unless it has other damage mitigating factors that are more complex.
Also, "This reduces damage die by one step" is practically equivalent to DR 1/-, since it decreases the expected damage in the same way. What's the point in making a new system when an old one is already in place?
As for giving DR x/- to heavier armors, I personally don't have anything against that. Would make some sense too-a punch by a pseudodragon dealing 1 damage shouldn't damage a person in full plate, even if it hit.
Less passive-aggressive and more discerning. Also, I have favorited several of his posts in this discussion. Also, also, for future reference, sometimes the system doesn't allow me to favorite things that I click on - it's a system lag that sometimes leads to posts that I've chosen to favorite not receiving a favorite. It happens more frequently than you may expect.
Regardless, I simply choose not to participate in the preponderance of this discussion, as there would be nothing that I could add to, at present, that isn't already covered. My repeated post above, however, was a joke based on an old film (as well as an attempt at making sure the question didn't get lost in the shuffle of a more exciting and long-standing debate.)
As to Blue Rose and True 20, both are d20-based systems that use the "track" style damage, and, outside of Ash's general distaste for such, I wondered if he'd seen those. BR came first, while True20 was the revision thereof (akin to 3rd/3.5 or 3.5/PF). I like some things the latter did, though I like the over-all system of the former a bit better.
For more, I'd have to be off the phone with Internet access... and that might take some time, even days.
Less passive-aggressive and more discerning.
I wish to clarify why I don't classify my actions as passing-aggressive (though they may well be). I classify passive-aggression as an attempt to manipulate others' actions via indirect methods. In other words, if my motives for leaving something without a favorite were an attempt to manipulate a certain outcome, that would be passive aggressive.
Instead, my motives are more simple: I just disagree with something and the presentation wasn't something I liked or enjoyed for <arbitrary inscrutable, or perhaps, scrutable reason>. It varies. Some threads I don't favorite much. Some I effectively carpet bomb. My purpose isn't to manipulate, but to communicate - or at least, perhaps, emote (which I consider a rudimentary form of communication).
If behavior is changed due to my action (or inaction, as the case may be), I suppose that's a (happy? sad? (un)fortunate? etc.?) incidental result of such communication, rather than an attempt on my part as manipulation. I submit that the line can be very fine, and motives for what others do can seem quite clear, but be deceptive. But because I strive for honesty/transparency, I wanted to ensure that my motives were as clear as possible.
Hope that helps!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to Blue Rose and True 20, both are d20-based systems that use the "track" style damage, and, outside of Ash's general distaste for such, I wondered if he'd seen those. BR came first, while True20 was the revision thereof (akin to 3rd/3.5 or 3.5/PF). I like some things the latter did, though I like the over-all system of the former a bit better.
I'll try to check 'em out sometime soonish (I've got some days off coming up). I've seen d20 games that don't use the traditional HP system (a few different variants actually), but I'm one of those people that really doesn't hate hit points and have generally felt that hit points serve D&D-esque games the best for a few reasons.
1. It's a game about going from normal human beings to people who can challenge godlike evils. Having a deeper hit point pool creates a very visceral awareness of growth and progress.
2. It's a simple mechanic that doesn't require a lot of checks which speeds up gameplay. I've often lauded psionics because it's no more complicated keeping track of PP than it is keeping track of Hp, which is probably among the least complicated mechanics in the game.
3. It serves its purpose well in heroic adventure fantasies. Most games I've seen that have damage tracks measuring how wounded you are likewise have conditions that go along with those tracks (essentially injury penalties) which, while adequately realistic, doesn't lend itself very well to heroic fantasy where players take on things like the CR 20 demon horde. These sorts of systems encourage alpha strikes in the extreme since being hit first makes retaliation harder, which encourages a very specific kind of playstyle by making a strong tactic (going first, ambushing, etc) all the stronger.
4. Generally, HP also allows for really minor hits to add up over time. For example, even if you've got 150 Hp, the mooks dropping fireball or unholy blight spells on you are still causing "chip damage" even when you make your saves and such. Most RPGs that forgo an HP pool in favor of a condition track lose out here, because either the piddly damage never has any growing effect (because it just keeps getting resisted) or it moves you along too quickly (in which case a group of enrinyes will slaughter your party in short order regardless of your defenses simply by pushing you from full health to dead on the condition track by spamming unblockable stuff).
Since the save-halves mechanics allow for an extra layer of strategy and encounters, and is often a good way for servants and mooks to perform in mid and high level adventures, making this less viable (in the case of casually resisted and thus effectively immune) or too viable (you got hit so your condition worsens) would be a bad and sad thing.
The long and short of it is that I haven't yet seen a non-HP system that does D&D better than an HP system. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Just that I haven't seen it yet. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it can act as some sort of minor debuff? For example, if you drop below 2/3 of HP you get a -1 on attack rolls and saves, if you drop below 1/3 it increases to -2, or something like that. That would smooth over weird step-like behavior HP has in Pathfinder, where you can go straight from "as good as ever" to "dead" from a cat brushing over your leg, although your death threshhold idea already does that to an extent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your opinion on Sunder combat maneuver being used against PC's items by the GM?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it can act as some sort of minor debuff? For example, if you drop below 2/3 of HP you get a -1 on attack rolls and saves, if you drop below 1/3 it increases to -2, or something like that. That would smooth over weird step-like behavior HP has in Pathfinder, where you can go straight from "as good as ever" to "dead" from a cat brushing over your leg, although your death threshhold idea already does that to an extent.
It still creates a situation where alpha-striking, which is already the best situation to be in (proactive > reactive when in combat with exceedingly rare exceptions), and penalizing the wounded creates a stronger snowballing effect. It also requires you to track % of current HP round to round. And you'd need to come with with penalties that affect classes more or less equally (a wizard isn't going to care much about a -1 to attack rolls, for example).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your opinion on Sunder combat maneuver being used against PC's items by the GM?
Items have hardness, hit points, and can be smashed. There's no magical special-snowflake badge the PCs get that says their stuff is immune to sundering.
In a more direct sense, I advise carrying an few extra spell pouches and backup weapons. >:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your opinion on Sunder combat maneuver being used against PC's items by the GM?It's have hardness, hit points, and can be smashed. There's no magical special-snowflake badge the PCs get that says their stuff is immune to sundering.
In a more direct sense, I advise carrying an few extra spell pouches and backup weapons. >:)
Weapons are one of the hardest things to sunder, actually. They are made of sturdy stuff and have enchancing magic on top of it. I was talking about weaker things-headbands, belts, and amulets. Expensive, yet easy to sunder things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapons are one of the hardest things to sunder, actually. They are made of sturdy stuff and have enchancing magic on top of it. I was talking about weaker things-headbands, belts, and amulets. Expensive, yet easy to sunder things.What is your opinion on Sunder combat maneuver being used against PC's items by the GM?It's have hardness, hit points, and can be smashed. There's no magical special-snowflake badge the PCs get that says their stuff is immune to sundering.
In a more direct sense, I advise carrying an few extra spell pouches and backup weapons. >:)
Ahhh, those sorts of things. Ehhh, I think how easy they are to sunder is a problem, but I don't have anything against the sunder maneuver being used against PCs.
I did like how in 3.0 you needed an item of equivalent magical power to sunder another magic item (so you couldn't sunder a +1 weapon with a mundane weapon), and I used to have a house rule back then where the CL of the item determined the enhancement bonus needed to sunder non-weapon/armor items (so a CL 9 item was harder to sunder than a CL 3 item).
I'll probably incorporate some sort of system in d20 legends to make worn items harder to sunder. There's something a bit weird about how incredibly difficult it can be to wound somebody, but incredibly easy it is to slice a mask right off their face, or split their glasses, or destroy a magic ring on their fingers, etc.
EDIT 2: Ninja'd from this post. Heh: one hour and twenty minutes (at least) between starting to write and being able to finish. Baby boys and their aggressively-defensive-of-meal-time-Grammy are a fierce (if wonderful) time-eater. The sunder is an interesting thing... hmmmm... I'm curious about your thoughts as well, Klara, and Ash: how do you feel about the concepts of gentlemen's agreements in personal tables and balancing acts?
I suspect your opinion won't change much, in that regard. One of the reasons I like the track system, is that I find it facilitates "paperless" play more easily - when my wife and Inare on long car trips, for instance, it works better (and is easier) to question whether "did you beat DC X? Yes/No, then..." is muuuuch easier in that case. (Vancian is, in this case, easier than PP as well, but I still like it less due to narrative inconsistency/silliness of "feeling" of it; skill-based works best in these cases - a reason I like the Cortex+ system as much as I do.)
That said, typically speaking, I enjoy PP for the same reasons as you and find the system the most elegant of the casting systems in an hp-based world.
That said, I also love up for the reasons you mention; and find Blue Rose as-written a bit clunky (the damage mechanic, specifically, becoming a save and keeping track of bruise points. I do think it's neat, it's just a tad of clunk (though the increasing resistance to bruises -> wounds does track to hp growth). I like the system (it's skill-based, fatigue-contingent style magic, three-fold class system, feat-based "specials", etc.) but recognize the potential issues. If one it much cleaner than Star Wars d20 or Psychic. True 20 is a bit better balanced, but comes across as clunkier and a little less smooth. Speaking of number growth: XP - do you like or prefer point-based level-ups? In 3.X, I liked XP. In PF, I find it needless number tracking as it doesn't actually mean anything in-world. I recognize (and feel!) it's loss, as it has no narrative impact beyond "hey, look, numbers!" I know others feel differently, so I was curious about your take. Also, anyone else posting here: I'd be curious about theirs as well.
EDIT: blarg: baby and Grammy made me ninja'd. Will look into other things later!